 |
Re: PTC
Author: tundraboomer
Date: 01-16-2018 - 10:21
Blah, blah, blah, blah…another armchair expert claiming to understand all the nuances of railroading and its safety procedures and systems. Seems like the media wants to continue to distort NTSB statements to perpetuate the notion that railroads are unsafe without PTC, and that nobody is working on getting PTC deployed. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Unfortunately, the ill-conceived RSIA is here to stay, so here’s everything you need to know about PTC.
In 2008 Congress pulled out of thin air an unfunded mandate for something that didn't exist then told the railroads to figure it out and install it by 2015. It was a totally conceptual safety system that didn’t previously exist and was only described in general terms as ‘a system that will stop trains in an unsafe situation’.
Then it took another two years before the FRA detailed the specification for a vaporware system that would rely on radio and data communication for which FCC could not, or would not, provide frequencies for, and would require land leases for the necessary but non-existent equipment that would take years to negotiate and obtain.
All of this had to be deployed by another arbitrary deadline.
PTC as required by the RSIA has a scale and level of complexity to that has never been attempted anywhere in the world. Unlike many countries the U.S. is fairly unique in that shared tracks host all sorts of trains from short, fast 800-ton commuter trains, to massive 16,000-ton, 2-mile long freight trains running with a hodgepodge of equipment and ranging in ages that span decades, using non-standardized operating rules and signaling systems, over every kind of urban and rural terrain you could possibly imagine, and over huge distances that are inconceivable to people in many countries.
In many places where PTC is deployed, it does not work very well either so to say PTC is a ‘work in progress’ would be a gross understatement. This is likely why, on many sections of railroad, the carriers are waiting until the last minute to deploy PTC. They are probably holding out for components and a system that is more “ready for prime time” than what presently exists.
The concepts and terminology used by the media in some of these articles is often disingenuous too. Often mentioned are earlier systems, such as ATC and ATS, which are much more simple and have limited features, plus various “train control” systems in Europe and Asia. The media likes to lump them all together and describe them as “PTC systems”. Although these other systems exist and would be much easier, cheaper, and faster to install and deploy, they do not possess the specifications that meet the current Government-imposed requirements for PTC in the U.S. so they are simply off the table. Yes, certain train control technologies exist, but PTC technology did not until very recently. They are very different systems and these other systems simply won’t do what PTC is REQUIRED to do.
Another fly in the ointment that never seems to get mentioned is that the independent contractors producing these PTC systems are not holding up their end of the deal and meeting the carrier’s deadlines. Delay after delay and massive technical issues have pushed deployment of functional systems back over and over again.
The popular perception is that the railroads resist because they don’t want to comply. But what the media fails to grasp or mention in most of these articles is that the carriers are so invested in PTC now (to the tune of BILLIONS) that they want it to be fully deployed. As the saying goes though, you can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first. The list of obstacles that has to be surmounted in order to deploy a system this complex and that has never previously existed is massive, regardless of how much the carriers WANT to get PTC deployed.
These media features seem to attempt to imply that nobody is working on PTC and everyone is just sitting around smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, complaining, and lobbying the Feds for more extensions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But hey, it’s the mainstream media. What do you expect these days?
Unfortunately, the ill-conceived RSIA is here to stay, so here’s everything you need to know about PTC.
In 2008 Congress pulled out of thin air an unfunded mandate for something that didn't exist then told the railroads to figure it out and install it by 2015. It was a totally conceptual safety system that didn’t previously exist and was only described in general terms as ‘a system that will stop trains in an unsafe situation’.
Then it took another two years before the FRA detailed the specification for a vaporware system that would rely on radio and data communication for which FCC could not, or would not, provide frequencies for, and would require land leases for the necessary but non-existent equipment that would take years to negotiate and obtain.
All of this had to be deployed by another arbitrary deadline.
PTC as required by the RSIA has a scale and level of complexity to that has never been attempted anywhere in the world. Unlike many countries the U.S. is fairly unique in that shared tracks host all sorts of trains from short, fast 800-ton commuter trains, to massive 16,000-ton, 2-mile long freight trains running with a hodgepodge of equipment and ranging in ages that span decades, using non-standardized operating rules and signaling systems, over every kind of urban and rural terrain you could possibly imagine, and over huge distances that are inconceivable to people in many countries.
In many places where PTC is deployed, it does not work very well either so to say PTC is a ‘work in progress’ would be a gross understatement. This is likely why, on many sections of railroad, the carriers are waiting until the last minute to deploy PTC. They are probably holding out for components and a system that is more “ready for prime time” than what presently exists.
The concepts and terminology used by the media in some of these articles is often disingenuous too. Often mentioned are earlier systems, such as ATC and ATS, which are much more simple and have limited features, plus various “train control” systems in Europe and Asia. The media likes to lump them all together and describe them as “PTC systems”. Although these other systems exist and would be much easier, cheaper, and faster to install and deploy, they do not possess the specifications that meet the current Government-imposed requirements for PTC in the U.S. so they are simply off the table. Yes, certain train control technologies exist, but PTC technology did not until very recently. They are very different systems and these other systems simply won’t do what PTC is REQUIRED to do.
Another fly in the ointment that never seems to get mentioned is that the independent contractors producing these PTC systems are not holding up their end of the deal and meeting the carrier’s deadlines. Delay after delay and massive technical issues have pushed deployment of functional systems back over and over again.
The popular perception is that the railroads resist because they don’t want to comply. But what the media fails to grasp or mention in most of these articles is that the carriers are so invested in PTC now (to the tune of BILLIONS) that they want it to be fully deployed. As the saying goes though, you can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first. The list of obstacles that has to be surmounted in order to deploy a system this complex and that has never previously existed is massive, regardless of how much the carriers WANT to get PTC deployed.
These media features seem to attempt to imply that nobody is working on PTC and everyone is just sitting around smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, complaining, and lobbying the Feds for more extensions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But hey, it’s the mainstream media. What do you expect these days?
